Letter to the Editor

Copyright 1988 The triarchic theory views human intelligence in
terms of analytic, synthetic (or creative), and practical thinking. It
is one of several contemporary theories that seek to broaden our
conception of what it means to be intelligent.

By the criteria of these new approaches, children and adults whom
traditional theories would not regard as very intelligent--an
imaginative entrepreneur, for example, or a street-smart business
person or student--are judged in a more favorable light.

In contrast, Mr. Baron's theory of rationality narrows the domain of
intelligence: It views intelligence strictly in terms of rational,
logical thinking.

Such thinking is a part of intelligence in the triarchic theory,
too. But it is not all there is to intelligence, in my view.

Although it may not be logical, thinking that is imaginative or
practical is not necessarily illogical. Rather, it is alogical. And it
is the stuff of most important--as well as mundane--problem solving and
decisionmaking.

People do not have to resort to formulas and canned algorithms to be
smart, although at times they well may. The tension between views such
as Mr. Baron's, emphasizing rational processes, and my own, stressing
not only rational but also more intuitive and practical thinking where
formulas do not apply, underlies the disagreements between us.

Mr. Baron claims the triarchic framework is "loose" and "arbitrary."
Unsurprisingly, he recommends his own theory instead.

Why, then, have other scholars almost ignored his framework? In a
review of Mr. Baron's book Rationality and Intelligence, Douglas
Detterman--editor of the journal Intelligence--pointed out that the
logical rules of thought to which Mr. Baron is attached tell us
relatively little about how people use their intelligence.

When a scientist conceives an experiment, when a teacher decides how
to handle a disciplinary problem, when a business executive develops a
way to sell a product, we just don't find--in the real world--the kind
of formal, rule-based thinking about which Mr. Baron writes.

The triarchic theory deals with intelligence as it is actually used.
The framework is not "loose": To the contrary, my book Beyond iq shows
that it is tightly, hierarchically organized. I did not repeat the
details of this organization in The Triarchic Mind because I intended
the book to be nontechnical.

Nor is the framework "arbitrary." Indeed, the distinction between
analytic and synthetic thinking is not only supported by my own
research but also well-grounded in contemporary theories of the
brain.

And differentiation between academic and practical thinking is so
firmly established in psychological research that I am surprised anyone
in 1988 would view it as arbitrary.

Mr. Baron argues that I arbitrarily assign the same name to
different mental processes. But my colleagues and I have in our
research demonstrated the unities of processes across several
inductive- and deductive-reasoning tasks. These studies are described
at some length in Beyond iq but not in The Triarchic Mind--again
because they are technical.

Mr. Baron also claims that the experiments I have conducted are not
closely linked to the advice I give. Beyond iq, however, presents
pertinent experiments testing the various aspects of the triarchic
theory.

I will readily admit to speculating at times about the implications
of the research for education. If researchers never speculated, there
would be no field of educational psychology at all.

No matter how the research is conducted, there is always some leap
between an experiment and any implications for education its designer
may draw. But if we want education to profit from psychological
research, then we must be willing to make that leap.

Mr. Baron's preoccupation with rational thinking is perhaps
understandable, given his own peculiar lapses of logic.

He argues, for instance, that I sometimes give bad advice. His
example is my suggestion that you "consider whether the goal towards
which you are striving is really the one you want to reach."

Claiming this advice "subtly supports errors in judgment," Mr. Baron
suggests that my recommendation could lead to
"single-mindedness--making decisions on the basis of a single goal and
ignoring tradeoffs.''

Since his logic was too subtle for me, I asked half a dozen other
people whether my advice supported single-mindedness. The connection
was too subtle for them, too. Most, in fact, thought it did the
opposite--by encouraging one to review one's goal, to consider
consequences of one's decision, and to look at alternatives.

Mr. Baron says that practice of mental processes by itself does not
lead to transfer. I agree. My own research on teaching
vocabulary-acquisition skills leads to this very conclusion.

But this same work--along with an insight-training program Janet
Davidson and I have devised--shows that theory-based practice
substantially increases intellectual skills. And with respect to The
Triarchic Mind, Mr. Baron is attacking a straw man. All of the
exercises in the book are grounded in a theory made explicit to
readers.

If Mr. Baron had data proving that theory-based practice and
training do not work, I assume he would have been quick to present
them.

Mr. Baron assails my conception of metacomponents--higher-order
processes used to plan, monitor, and evaluate problem solving. This
attack shows just how out of sync with the rest of the field he is.
Similar processes have been suggested by many other researchers in
intelligence.

He also finds at least some of the precepts of intelligent thinking
that I present "obvious." So do I.

But I offered these principles on the basis of their importance to
intelligent thinking--not on the grounds of their obviousness or
subtlety.

Moreover, a major point of the book is that sometimes people do not
do obvious things--either because there can be a large gap between
thought and action, or because they don't think of the appropriate
precepts when they need them, or because they don't know how to apply
them.

Finally, Mr. Baron argues that I am too concerned with measures of
outward success in the development of the triarchic theory.

But he misconstrues the theory: Measures of outward success are used
as criteria against which to externally validate aspects of the
triarchic theory.

Measures of outward success were never used in developing the
theory. If the measures derived from a theory bear no relation to
external criteria, however, then indeed they may be somehow
idiosyncratic to a particular theoretical framework.

Mr. Baron argues that we should use as validation criteria people's
personal criteria for success. As a believer in and user of multiple
criteria, I agree.

Personal criteria are limited, however, if used by themselves.
Should we label as intelligent a student who desires just barely to
pass his courses and manages to fulfill this goal? How about the
scientist who derives a theory that does not work but who isn't
bothered by that failure?

Because no single criterion of success is the "right" one, my
research uses multiple criteria. Ideally, judgments would be based on
both individuals' and society's standards.

The triarchic theory of intelligence is not wholly adequate. No
theory of intelligence is, at least not yet.

But the theory has generated a substantial amount of empirical
research and has served as the basis for a published training program
and a forthcoming abilities test.

My goal is not to eliminate testing but to strengthen it: to provide
educators with better tests, more closely linked to the teaching of
intellectual skills.

Mr. Baron says that other theorists--whom he does not name--have
already gone beyond the triarchic framework. If so, I am pleased to
hear it. Any good theory plants the seeds for the new and better
theories of the future.

As all theories are eventually superseded, so shall mine be, whether
now or at some time in the future. But the framework that replaces it
needs to be broad rather than narrow in its conceptualization of
intelligence.

Mr. Baron writes as though his viewpoint is widely shared. It's
not.

Indeed, a perusal of the Social Science Citation Index reveals that
my work based on the triarchic theory has been cited (with corrections
for self-citation) more than five time as often as Mr. Baron's work
based on his theory of intelligence--the point of view he fields in his
review.

Phillip M. Danner Principal Fort Lauderdale, Fla. To the Editor:

In her recent Commentary, Susan Ohanian assailed former U.S.
Secretary of Education William J. Bennett's suggested reading list as
"demeaning to children, their teachers, and the whole wonderful world
of children's literature" ("How To Create a Generation of
'Aliterates'," Oct. 12, 1988).

And she termed Mr. Bennett himself a "cultural elitist" in whose
hands such a list could be "terribly dangerous."

Ms. Ohanian's political bias has clouded her educational
insight.

Writing that "culturalists are ... short on pleasure," she makes it
appear that Mr. Bennett's list would eliminate pleasure reading from
the curriculum. That is simply nonsense.

And she intimates that children would be forced to read books above
their grade levels and thereby be turned off to the joys of reading.
More nonsense.

Using two examples of children who are exceptionally poor readers
and who most likely could never read a newspaper--never mind Charles
Dickens--she builds an emotional argument against Mr. Bennett's "little
list."

The implication of her stance is that educational policy for the
majority should be based upon the minority's needs. This is reverse
democracy.

She speaks of the needs of individual students as a key element in
determining curricula. But her essay appears to place individual
students' desires ahead of their needs.

After reading Ms. Ohanian's Commentary, one wonders if she is
willing to admit that the classic books are of any value
whatsoever.

The real disgrace in education today is not that children are taught
that the "only good author is a dead one," but that children are not
taught effectively how to read at all.

Warren Marcus St. Andrew's Episcopal School Bethesda, Md.

I am responding to Martha C. Brown's letter lambasting the "Facing
History and Ourselves" curriculum and charging bias on the part of its
supporters ("Weighing Charges of 'Bias' In Denial of History Course,"
Oct. 19, 1988).

At St. Andrew's, where I have taught the course for three years, it
has enjoyed tremendous support from the parent body and the school
administration and has received excellent evaluations from
participating students.

Ms. Brown charges that the curriculum "teaches little history and
uses the horrors of the Holocaust as an entree to issues of nuclear
armament and other political and social controversies." This is an
unfair description of the course.

In fact, it includes much European history before World War II, the
history of antisemitism (as a case study of prejudice), and the events
of the Holocaust, the liberation of the camps, and the Nuremberg
Trials.

The "controversies" she mentions are used in the final chapter as
examples of issues that responsible citizens may consider as they
become informed, vote, and act in other constructive ways.

I would hope that such "controversies" are not to be avoided in
curricula that encourage thinking about democracy, current events, and
individual choice and responsibility. What lesson are we teaching if we
consciously avoid controversial issues?

Ms. Brown also misrepresents the role of personal journals in the
course. These journals are totally confidential, and they allow
students to report and reflect on class activities.

The journals are a valuable tool, particularly for students who have
difficulty articulating their views in class.

Ms. Brown asks, "What do young teenagers gain from this emotionally
trying experience?"

The study of some parts of history is troubling. But students
acquire through this course an understanding of the sequence of events
by which a civilized country turned into a deadly fascist nation.

In doing so, they also consider the effects of individual choice,
the patterns of their own thinking, the continuing existence of
prejudice, and the complex impact of education, propaganda, and the
media, among other topics.

Ms. Brown worries that educators, by using curricula like "Facing
History," are "neglecting essentials."

But responsible citizenship education--such as that offered by this
curriculum--should be one of the "essentials."

W.M. Eplen Waller, Tex.

Terry Northup attributes the current state of educational
bureaucracy in Texas to the Republican governor, Bill Clements
("Republicans Said To Back State Control of Schools," Letters, Oct. 26,
1988).

But House Bill 72, a tax bill disguised as "education reform," was
passed during the term of a Democrat, Gov. Mark White, by a legislature
under the influence of" the billionaire H. Ross Perot. And the
legislation was interpreted by a state board of education hand-picked
by Mr. Perot.

By removing virtually all local control and placing power in the
hands of Mr. Perot's minions on the state board, this legislation
severely damaged Texas's education system.

Fortunately, on Nov. 8, 1988, the voters of Texas once again
returned to an elected state board.

Jeff Bullock Phoenixville, Pa.

In 1977, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law requiring
students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. During the
1988 Presidential campaign, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis's opponents
questioned his judgment and patriotism because he refused to sign the
bill ("Conflicts Over Pledge: A Long, Tense History," Sept. 7,
1988).

Taken voluntarily, the pledge is a noble expression of faith in God
and country.

But when people are forced to take any sacred oath, the words can
ring hollow.

What upsets Governor Dukakis--and the U.S. Supreme Court--is a
government that tries to ram the Pledge of Allegiance down people's
throats.

What is it about the Constitution that upsets Vice President George
Bush?

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.